Worst HW Champs

The OP clearly says lineal champions, so fair or not, Briggs must be in the equation.

 

What the hell is Patterson doing on your list get real:verysad, if you don't like him because you think he had chin issues, check out weak Leon Slinks, Bruce I'm gonna take a dive Seldom, and Hasim I can't take a punch Rahman who was stopped so many times I can't remember:huh

Braddock shouldn't be on the list either, He was better than Briggs, Spinks, and I would throw in Seldon and Buster Douglas as well who in his first title defense was blown out in a round by Holyfield..

 

Leon Spinks, definitely.Though if he didn't get caught up in the extracirricular, he would have surprised some people.

 

Patterson ? are you serious?:?

 

My vote goes to sir Leon Spinks....second place goes to Carnera.
I do have respect for Spinks . he still beat the undisputed champion.

 

It is debatable who was the best lineal champion, but Leon Spinks is a pretty clear cut choice for being the worst.

For all of the others, you can point to some sort of substantive wins, outside of the obligatory fight where they won the lineal title.

Carnera doesn't belong in the discussion, his resume is very very substantial.

 

No one? I considered Foreman the real World Champion. A very weak World Champion who I feel had a disgraceful reign. But the World Champion nonetheless.

When George KO'd Moorer it made me angry 'cos I just knew Foreman was going to sit on the title and not defend it against anyone even remotely dangerous. This after several years of knowing for sure who "the man" was: Tyson-Douglas-Holyfield-Bowe-Holyfield-Moorer-(ugh) Foreman. And I was right. Thus most people didn't consider Foreman to be the real champion by the time he fought Briggs.

I know my position of viewing the lineal title as the real World Heavyweight Championship can be argued. But I'm sticking to that position. I guess I hate the sanctioning bodies more than I hate weak champions who milk their time on the throne.

 

On sheer heart alone, Braddock doesn't belong on the list. He was a true champion....even if he didn't defend it for nearly 2 years

 

If it were like nowdays Braddock would've been stripped and we would've had three or more "champions" for a few years until Joe Louis unified the belts. Then he would've been stripped again during WWII.

 

I don't think that this is a good argument.

The guys at the bottom of the list, will by definition be trading on heart/upsets.

 

:deal

 

I said nobody considered him the real HW champ WHEN HE FOUGHT BRIGGS. He was the linear champ. but by 1997 he had been stripped of any title and Holyfield had beaten Tyson.

 

I know I'm in the minority, but I did consider George to be the real Heavyweight Champion of the World when he fought Briggs. He hadn't lost and he hadn't retired. He hadn't relinquished the title, just organizational belts. He fought at least once every year. Was George the best heavyweight in the world? Not by a long shot. Did he handle the title well and fight top contenders? Not at all. But he was still World Heavyweight Champion.

If the sanctioning bodies were better at running things and not so obviously crooked and self-serving, perhaps I would recognize their titles and their strippings. But they're not so I don't.

 

Foreman dropped two belts in that period, one to avoid Tucker and the other to avoid Schulz, sorry but he should not be called champ.

 

Wladimir Klitschko.

Threw Tony Thompson to the canvas. As he was falling on him , he deliberately drove his knee into Tony's leg in order to limit his movement.

Just one example out of hundreds why he takes that title.